Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the return shape ({id, resource_type: 'article'}) and the underlying endpoint (GET /api/v1/helpcenter/search.json), which helps the agent plan its next call. It omits pagination behavior, though the schema's limit/offset params partially cover that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences: the scope and return shape come first, the follow-up tool second. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description helpfully sketches the return shape and the natural next step. Combined with full schema coverage of the five parameters, an agent has what it needs to invoke this correctly, though explicit guidance against sibling search/list tools would close the gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and every parameter (in, limit, query, locale, offset) already carries its own description with defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (search) and resource scope (help center articles and/or public conversations), and clarifies the return type is references. It differentiates itself from list-style siblings like kayako_list_articles by being keyword-driven, but it never explicitly contrasts with the generic kayako_search sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a follow-up routing hint (read results with kayako_get_article), which is genuinely useful. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus kayako_search or kayako_list_articles, so the agent must infer the search-vs-browse distinction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.